According to a study conducted by the Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corporation, legal aid boosted the state’s economy by $53 million in 2011 through federal benefits won and state costs saved.

Those numbers sparked legislators’ interest in Massachusetts and have led to a recent proposal to increase MA’s Legal Assistance Corporation’s funding. Here’s more from The Boston Globe:

Civil legal aid has always been underfunded. But over the past three years, the work of these attorneys has hung by a slender thread. State appropriations have shrunk, and private donations have dwindled. The result? Legal aid programs have lost a third of their staff in the last three years. For every five people who come to legal aid attorneys for help navigating the court system, three are turned away, says Lonnie Powers, executive director of the Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corporation, the largest funding source for legal civil aid in the state.

“They’re on their own,’’ Powers says. “They lump it or go to court by themselves.’’

Lumping it costs not just those who find themselves alone in the maze of our legal system, but all of us. The asthma sufferer whose medication is no longer covered by Medicare ends up in the far more expensive emergency room. A family unfairly evicted ends up in pricier temporary housing. A worker unjustly denied jobless benefits lands on welfare. A study by Powers’s outfit estimates that legal aid boosted the state’s economy by $53 million last year through federal benefits won and state costs saved.

At a rules hearing in Wisconsin, more than two dozen legal professionals told the Supreme Court that they support a rule change requiring circuit court judges to appoint lawyers in some civil cases in which basic human needs were at stake.

This suggestion comes after the realization that pro se programs and legal aid organizations are just not enough.

Opposition to the idea is rooted in its unknown costs.

“The costs are unknown and could be huge,” said David Callender of the Wisconsin Counties Association. “The argument is always that it saves money on the back end. But we just don’t know.”

People have dubbed the idea — Civil Gideon — after the landmark case Gideon v. Wainwright, which established a poor defendant’s right to a free lawyer in a criminal cases.

There is still a lot of skepticism about how the program would work and if it would be worthwhile.

As if we needed more confirmation that there is an access to justice crisis in our nation, there seems to be more press coverage about the subject than ever.

I wonder if because the journalists are taking up the issue so vehemently (presumably because the public cares about the issue, or at least should care), will the lawmakers follow suit — will they hear us?